Manning, shocked by “the bloodlust,” went with WikiLeaks

Watching soldiers kill "like a child torturing an ant with a magnifying glass."

Over the course of two hours in a military courtroom today, Bradley Manning explained why—and in precise detail, how—he sent WikiLeaks confidential diplomatic cables and "war logs." Bradley's 35-page statement, read over the course of a few hours this afternoon, followed the news that he had pleaded guilty to 10 lesser counts among the many charges against him. The admissions were not part of a plea bargain; Manning still faces trial in June on the most serious charges, such as "aiding the enemy."

Manning was flanked by his civilian lawyer, David Coombs, on one side and two military defence lawyers on the other. Wearing full uniform, the soldier read out the document at high speed, occasionally stumbling over the words and at other points laughing at his own comments.

The American people had the right to know "the true costs of war," Manning said in court today today. He continued:

"I felt we were risking so much for people who seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and hatred on both sides. I began to become depressed at the situation we found ourselves mired in year after year." [CBS News]

"We were obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and ignoring goals and missions. I believed if the public, particularly the American public, could see this it could spark a debate on the military and our foreign policy in general [that] might cause society to reconsider the need to engage in counter-terrorism while ignoring the human situation of the people we engaged with every day." [The Guardian]

He was particularly upset by video of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack that was ultimately found to have killed civilians and a Reuters journalist. "[T]he bloodlust they seemed to have, they seemed not to value human life," said Manning. "For me that was like a child torturing an ant with a magnifying glass."

Ultimately, Manning decided not to keep the video classified. He uploaded it to WikiLeaks and it spread like wildfire, becoming known as the infamous "collateral murder" video. Manning used Tor anonymizing software to upload the video.

Rebuffed by newspapers, Manning turns to an admired website

That was the first step in what became a deluge of leaked data. After the video went viral, Manning was approached by a WikiLeaks figure named "Ox," whom he assumed to be Julian Assange. Manning gave himself the codename of "Nathaniel Frank," after a character in a novel he'd recently read.

First, Manning decided to leak the millions of war documents he had from Iraq and Afghanistan. Remarkably, he actually tried to give them to two leading US newspapers—and was turned away. Manning said a message he left at the New York Times was not returned, and a reporter at The Washington Post didn't take him seriously. He also considered contacting the website Politico but ultimately didn't approach them because of bad weather conditions.

Spokespeople for the Post and the Times both said today that those newspapers had no knowledge of an attempt by Manning to offer information to them.

At one point during pre-trial motions, prosecutors suggested they would have taken legal action against the Times had they published the information before Wikileaks had. "Publishing information in a newspaper [can] indirectly convey information to the enemy," a military prosecutor told Col. Denise Lind, who is overseeing the case.

Manning ultimately decided to send the documents to Wikileaks. He had become aware of the website in 2009, the same year it released more than 500,000 text messages sent the day of the 9/11 attacks—a move that had impressed him.

The location from which Manning decided to send what he called "the most significant documents of our time"? A Barnes & Noble in suburban Maryland. He saved the files on the memory stick on his camera and uploaded them from the bookstore during his mid-tour leave.

Late in the day, Col. Lind questioned Manning about the seeming contradiction between his justification for his actions and his admission in his guilty plea that he had undermined the "good order and discipline" of the armed forces.

"Regardless of my opinions, it's beyond my pay-grade, it's beyond my authority to make these decisions," Manning replied, according to The Guardian. "There are channels you are supposed to go through. I didn't even look at those channels–that's not how we do business."

Just based on the 10 charges Manning has pled guilty to, he faces up to 20 years in prison. If convicted on additional charges after his June trial, he could receive a life sentence.

Editor Moonshark says:

I'd rather not get into the topic on whether he was right or wrong, but I have to credit this kid and his giant brass balls for sticking to his story like this. Gotta give him credit for not backing down on his convictions.

The government abuses secrecy; it was time for someone to abuse a clearance in return. For that Manning pays the ultimate price: years in solitary and likely, decades behind bars. Welcome to Bushbama's America, where whistleblowers face the wrath of an authoritarian government.

I'd rather not get into the topic on whether he was right or wrong, but I have to credit this kid and his giant brass balls for sticking to his story like this. Gotta give him credit for not backing down on his convictions.

He was a coward, idiot, and traitor, in that order. He will be put in a deep, dark hole forever, and raped by very bad people. Deserved.

Im still kind of baffled how such a low ranking guy could get access to so much information.

I'm not an intel analyst myself, but I do work with a few really high-speed ones. To simply qualify for that job, you need a Top Secret clearance, and that's even as a PVT straight from Basic. They have need-to-know on just about whatever the Colonel says they do, so long as the Old Man himself is cleared for it.

I'd rather not get into the topic on whether he was right or wrong, but I have to credit this kid and his giant brass balls for sticking to his story like this. Gotta give him credit for not backing down on his convictions.

He was a coward, idiot, and traitor, in that order. He will be put in a deep, dark hole forever, and raped by very bad people. Deserved.

I'd rather not get into the topic on whether he was right or wrong, but I have to credit this kid and his giant brass balls for sticking to his story like this. Gotta give him credit for not backing down on his convictions.

He was a coward, idiot, and traitor, in that order. He will be put in a deep, dark hole forever, and raped by very bad people. Deserved.

Perhaps you should seek medical advice? Your fantasies do not look healthy.

I'd rather not get into the topic on whether he was right or wrong, but I have to credit this kid and his giant brass balls for sticking to his story like this. Gotta give him credit for not backing down on his convictions.

He was a coward, idiot, and traitor, in that order. He will be put in a deep, dark hole forever, and raped by very bad people. Deserved.

It is a blatant misuse of secrecy to cover up crimes committed by military personnel. There is no requirement in the oaths US military personnel take to follow illegal orders, or to aid in cover up of same.

In fact, reading the oaths (e.g. here: http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html ) you can easily imply a duty to do the opposite, to uncover crimes and to reveal illegal orders, or at the very least breaches of "regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

I see, and indeed Daniel Ellsberg himself sees (e.g. here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/1 ... 97801.html ), nothing substantially different about Manning's actions and Ellsberg's. If Ellsberg is a hero for revealing 7,000 pages of Top Secret coverups, then how is Manning a villain for revealing thousands of pages of much LESS classified material? Nothing Manning revealed was Top Secret.

Manning did not declassify the video. He does not/did not have the authority. Unauthorized discourse is not declassification. Even if classified information is improperly released it is still considered classified unless those with the authority to declassify it (usually those who produced it) do so. Others with security clearances can face disciplinary action for further release or discussion of such information.

It is a blatant misuse of secrecy to cover up crimes committed by military personnel. There is no requirement in the oaths US military personnel take to follow illegal orders, or to aid in cover up of same.

In fact, reading the oaths (e.g. here: http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html ) you can easily imply a duty to do the opposite, to uncover crimes and to reveal illegal orders, or at the very least breaches of "regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

I see, and indeed Daniel Ellsberg himself sees (e.g. here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/1 ... 97801.html ), nothing substantially different about Manning's actions and Ellsberg's. If Ellsberg is a hero for revealing 7,000 pages of Top Secret coverups, then how is Manning a villain for revealing thousands of pages of much LESS classified material? Nothing Manning revealed was Top Secret.

Military laws don't specify what level of classification something has to be to be released without authorization. It could be Top Secret, Secret, Confidential, or even FOUO. It's covered under "Spillage" which is when any classified material from one network is put on a lower classified network. In this case, Secret to Open Source. The same could happen if it was Top Secret to Secret, both different levels and the regulations and laws are blind to what level of classification it is. It doesn't even care about the intent either, if you are responsible for it, you will be punished and a lot of people besides Manning get in trouble for it every year either because they made a mistake or did it on purpose (espionage, corporate spying, or just some people think they can get away with it for no reason).

I really can't believe that the helicopter video is what prompted him. Having actually watched the whole thing and read the investigator's reports, it seems obvious to me that the soldiers in the helicopter took the correct action based on the information they had. There was a group of insurgents, carrying illegal weapons (including at least one RPG) near a live combat situation. A helicopter fired on them and eliminated the imminent threat to their comrades. Unfortunately, reporters had embedded themselves with those insurgents and were killed. However, the moral of the story isn't "don't shoot at insurgents" but rather "don't embed yourself with insurgents." Yeah, it isn't a good thing that the reporters died, but it's not the soldiers' fault.

Later in the video, the questions become more difficult (the soldiers appear to have believed that the man was trying to collect weapons, rather than just rescuing people.) But Manning seems to have simply assumed that the soldiers were in the wrong, something that is not apparent from the video.

Regardless, releasing the information publicly was not the correct path. Even if you want to argue for the video, to indiscriminately release diplomatic cables and other documents that include the names of US informants against terrorists is not acceptable and certainly not laudable.

We should all be doing what we can to support freeing Pvt Manning. He has been is jail for 1000 days already. Most in solitary confinement. Everyone should watch the video he leaked with the shooting of civilians, reporter, and cameraman.

Regardless, releasing the information publicly was not the correct path. Even if you want to argue for the video, to indiscriminately release diplomatic cables and other documents that include the names of US informants against terrorists is not acceptable and certainly not laudable.

Agreed, but Manning didn't do that. Neither did Wikileaks. Until they were royally screwed by the Guardian newspaper, there was no "indiscriminate" dumping of anything.

All this is just public record, really. Amazing how persistent the "they dumped everything!!!!" false narrative has been.

The radical approach this young man took has resulted a deep review of what is secret, why its secret and to what level information that the public may or may not have the right to know affects the decisions we make in our society.

The scope of the impact has to weighed in both positive and negative aspects.

The debate about our country's military action should continue. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" were not found in Iraq - a major embarrassment since it weighed heavily in the public's support of the war. Would better transparency through some proper channels have save us a few trillion dollars? Do those channels exist?

Should Google, Exxon and other tax avoiding Corporations also forget having their 'American Interests' defended by the Military which is tax payer funded?

The entire topic of military action and when its appropriate, given the incredible debt it brought to the average American and incredible wealth it brought to a small group of people should be reviewed.

This is a complex and deep issue and deserves long-term attention and engagement with the public.

Another vote for releasing him for time served, and then maybe a congressional medal of honor for good measure. Manning should be an inspiration to us all. In the face of the cover up of monstrous crimes, despite enormous personal risk, he decided to do something.

Not to get this discussion off-topic, but it's intriguing how Q1DM6's message was downvoted into oblivion so I couldn't see it, but then everyone responded and quoted it so I've now read it 4 times instead of once.

We should all be doing what we can to support freeing Pvt Manning. He has been is jail for 1000 days already. Most in solitary confinement. Everyone should watch the video he leaked with the shooting of civilians, reporter, and cameraman.

You mean those "civilians" with AK-47s and RPGs, following and watching US forces from a few blocks away while said US forces were reporting being fired upon. Yeah, it was completely black and white.

Not to get this discussion off-topic, but it's intriguing how Q1DM6's message was downvoted into oblivion so I couldn't see it, but then everyone responded and quoted it so I've now read it 4 times instead of once.

One of the downsides of flat comments. Right now it's on people not to quote stuff like that. Once a post gets voted down far enough the quote button is removed, but often that doesn't happen in time.

Not to get this discussion off-topic, but it's intriguing how Q1DM6's message was downvoted into oblivion so I couldn't see it, but then everyone responded and quoted it so I've now read it 4 times instead of once.

One of the downsides of flat comments. Right now it's on people not to quote stuff like that. Once a post gets voted down far enough the quote button is removed, but often that doesn't happen in time.

It's not like that really helps; you can manually quote/reply if need be. Considering he's expressing an opinion that is somewhat widely held, it is useful to respond directly to him with arguments and disagreements.

I'd rather not get into the topic on whether he was right or wrong, but I have to credit this kid and his giant brass balls for sticking to his story like this. Gotta give him credit for not backing down on his convictions.

Totally agree.

The kid seems to have done what he thought was right and now appears to have the courage of his convictions. You certainly don't often see folks plead guilty without a plea agreement very often.

Was he right to do what he did?... That's for US society and maybe history to decide.

It is pretty simple in my opinion. Anything paid for with public money should be available to the public to view.

Secrecy is a blight on modern democracy.

Oh really? You might want to think really hard about that one. Public money pays for everything our armed forces do. Do you have the right to know where any given soldier is at any moment? Or where a team of SEAL's might be as they're executing a mission?

The kind of information you want to know, you have no business knowing, because it puts peoples lives at risk. The lives of people that put their own lives at stake to protect you.

While the American people have a right to know what the government is up to, there must be limits. It should be with the proper amount of consideration to the circumstances.

Perhaps blanket statements like "anything paid for with public money" aren't a good idea to throw around.

I really can't believe that the helicopter video is what prompted him. Having actually watched the whole thing and read the investigator's reports, it seems obvious to me that the soldiers in the helicopter took the correct action based on the information they had. There was a group of insurgents, carrying illegal weapons (including at least one RPG) near a live combat situation. A helicopter fired on them and eliminated the imminent threat to their comrades. Unfortunately, reporters had embedded themselves with those insurgents and were killed. However, the moral of the story isn't "don't shoot at insurgents" but rather "don't embed yourself with insurgents." Yeah, it isn't a good thing that the reporters died, but it's not the soldiers' fault.

I think the point is he didn't have that information. From what I have gathered and remember, and I could be wrong about this, he pulled that video off the unit share drive. Specifically the JAG's portion of it. It is possible that he knew none of the background information regarding the investigation of the incident seeing he was in G2/S2 and not in JAG. This is one reason I am less sympathetic with him. Disclosing that information which was already brought to the attention of the JAG, seeing it was on their portion of the drive, might have jeopardized their investigation. It turned out it really didn't matter, but Manning would most likely not have been able to know that at the time. He isn't a lawyer.

I really can't believe that the helicopter video is what prompted him. Having actually watched the whole thing and read the investigator's reports, it seems obvious to me that the soldiers in the helicopter took the correct action based on the information they had. There was a group of insurgents, carrying illegal weapons (including at least one RPG) near a live combat situation. A helicopter fired on them and eliminated the imminent threat to their comrades. Unfortunately, reporters had embedded themselves with those insurgents and were killed. However, the moral of the story isn't "don't shoot at insurgents" but rather "don't embed yourself with insurgents." Yeah, it isn't a good thing that the reporters died, but it's not the soldiers' fault.

I think the point is he didn't have that information. From what I have gathered and remember, and I could be wrong about this, he pulled that video off the unit share drive. Specifically the JAG's portion of it. It is possible that he knew none of the background information regarding the investigation of the incident seeing he was in G2/S2 and not in JAG. This is one reason I am less sympathetic with him. Disclosing that information which was already brought to the attention of the JAG, seeing it was on their portion of the drive, might have jeopardized their investigation. It turned out it really didn't matter, but Manning would most likely not have been able to know that at the time. He isn't a lawyer.

He definitely wasn't a lawyer and being only a lowly PFC he's not aware of how things are handled at pay grades above him. He definitely had training on releasing classified info from when he went to Intel school to unauthorized persons is a no go which he will get punished for. He also had some delusions of granduer too because he shared with the hacker who turned him in that he hoped this leak would help him one day in politics even in helping him become president some day (the latter is for sure wishful thinking but he had an agenda beyond simply making things known). I mean who hasn't been as naive as him at his age? He probably should have realized that discretion and secrecy is a major cornerstone in politics. No one is going to want to work with you or even hire you if you have a propensity to leak information you're entrusted with. So even if he doesn't get any jail time and is released to do as he pleases tomorrow, he'll have trouble getting a job at any tech, finance, or medical company that deals in very confidential trade secrets and information. He'll probably just end up being some poster boy for an activist group and then fade into obscurity when the next guy or girl gets famous on something else. Sucks for Manning but that's how it'll play out or he goes to jail.

It is pretty simple in my opinion. Anything paid for with public money should be available to the public to view.

Secrecy is a blight on modern democracy.

Oh really? You might want to think really hard about that one. Public money pays for everything our armed forces do. Do you have the right to know where any given soldier is at any moment? Or where a team of SEAL's might be as they're executing a mission?

The kind of information you want to know, you have no business knowing, because it puts peoples lives at risk. The lives of people that put their own lives at stake to protect you.

While the American people have a right to know what the government is up to, there must be limits. It should be with the proper amount of consideration to the circumstances.

Perhaps blanket statements like "anything paid for with public money" aren't a good idea to throw around.

If the military is running round doing things that the general public can't know about, maybe that is a good indication that they shouldn't be doing those things.

I have no problem with operation information being kept secret while and operation is happening, but there are no grounds not to release that information promptly after the operation finishes.

There is absolutely no justification for keeping information secret for months, let alone years.

The 'puts peoples lives at risk' argument is nonsensical. Most of the deployments that America has made in the last decade were completely unnecessary. They could have put no ones lives at risk but not pursuing a retrograde policy of aggression.

It's a shame what they've done to this young man. Even if he was in the wrong- He should be let go for time served.

And whether he was in the wrong in detail, I think his intensions were honorable and his actions ultimately benefitted the world, although not as much as they could have, thanks to the incredibly bias corporate-war-loving media we have.

It is pretty simple in my opinion. Anything paid for with public money should be available to the public to view.

Secrecy is a blight on modern democracy.

Oh really? You might want to think really hard about that one. Public money pays for everything our armed forces do. Do you have the right to know where any given soldier is at any moment? Or where a team of SEAL's might be as they're executing a mission?

The kind of information you want to know, you have no business knowing, because it puts peoples lives at risk. The lives of people that put their own lives at stake to protect you.

While the American people have a right to know what the government is up to, there must be limits. It should be with the proper amount of consideration to the circumstances.

Perhaps blanket statements like "anything paid for with public money" aren't a good idea to throw around.

If the military is running round doing things that the general public can't know about, maybe that is a good indication that they shouldn't be doing those things.

I have no problem with operation information being kept secret while and operation is happening, but there are no grounds not to release that information promptly after the operation finishes.

There is absolutely no justification for keeping information secret for months, let alone years.

The 'puts peoples lives at risk' argument is nonsensical. Most of the deployments that America has made in the last decade were completely unnecessary. They could have put no ones lives at risk but not pursuing a retrograde policy of aggression.

It seems like you are unfamiliar with what happens on missions like this-more intelligence is gathered, further raids are conducted. Releasing this information would put the soldiers at risk who carry out future missions based on that intelligence. It would also put the soldiers who carried out the original mission at risk.

The point is-you are demanding to know these things, but you would not do anything constructive with this knowledge, and would most likely do something destructive. There are many legitimate reasons for keeping things secret. Our entire country depends on that, whether you appreciate it or not. Name a country that has no secrets.

Why do you think most soldiers don't just blab about the things they do to everyone? They know that by giving out such information it puts the lives of their brothers/sisters at stake. Pay it forward.

Let's say someone in the military goes crazy and does start murdering people-there are proper channels for dealing with that so that the situation can be handled in the best manner possible. Manning stated he ignored those channels and went straight to a website that I'll guarantee every terrorist group in the world was combing through.